Comparaison des perceptions des enfants atteints d'arthrite juvénile et de celles de leurs parents concernant l'observance aux traitements et son impact sur la qualité de vie

Mémoire numérisé par la Direction des bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal

Utilisation des médecines complémentaires par les enfants atteints d'arthrite juvénile idiopathique et d'incapacités physiques

Contexte : Les enfants atteints de maladies chroniques utilisent souvent des médecines complémentaires. Plusieurs études traitent de l’utilisation de ces traitements et des facteurs qui y sont associés chez les enfants atteints d’arthrite juvénile mais aucune étude n’est longitudinale. De plus, aucune n’a documenté l’utilisation de ces traitements chez les enfants ayant des incapacités physiques en attente de services publics de réadaptation. Objectifs : Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de déterminer la fréquence d’utilisation des médecines complémentaires chez les enfants atteints d’arthrite juvénile et d’incapacités physiques, d’évaluer leur efficacité telle que perçue par les parents et d’explorer les facteurs associés à leur utilisation. Méthodes : Une cohorte d’enfants atteints d’arthrite juvénile idiopathique (n=182, âge moyen : 10,2 ans) qui fréquentent des cliniques d’arthrite et une cohorte d’enfants ayant des incapacités physiques en attente de services de réadaptation publics (n=224, âge moyen : 2,6 ans) ont été suivis durant une période d’un an. L’utilisation des médecines complémentaires et la perception de leur efficacité d’après les parents ont été évaluées à l’aide de statistiques descriptives à chaque trois mois pour la cohorte d’enfants atteints d’arthrite et au début de l’étude pour la cohorte d’enfants ayant des incapacités physiques. Les facteurs associés à l’utilisation de ces traitements ont été explorés par des analyses de type GEE (« Generalized estimating equations ») et des régressions polytomique et logistique. Résultats : L’utilisation antérieure de ces médecines était de 51,1% pour les enfants atteints d’arthrite et de 15% pour les enfants ayant des incapacités physiques. Les médecines complémentaires étaient considérées comme étant efficaces dans 72% des cas par les parents d’enfants atteints d’arthrite et dans 83% des cas par les parents d’enfants ayant des incapacités physiques. Les facteurs associés à l’utilisation des médecines complémentaires chez les enfants atteints d’arthrite étaient l’utilisation antérieure des médecines complémentaires par les parents et la perception des parents que les médicaments prescrits ne sont pas utiles pour leur enfant. Chez les enfants ayant des incapacités physiques, les facteurs associés à l’utilisation des médecines complémentaires étaient l’origine culturelle canadienne, un niveau de scolarité plus élevé que le diplôme d’études secondaires et une moins bonne qualité de vie reliée à la santé. Finalement, l’utilisation des médecines complémentaires semblait associée à de moins bons résultats chez les enfants atteints d’arthrite. Conclusion: Une proportion non-négligeable des enfants participant à la présente étude ont utilisé des médecines complémentaires. Leur utilisation était plus fréquente chez les enfants atteints d’arthrite juvénile idiopathique, surtout chez ceux dont les parents avaient déjà utilisé les médecines complémentaires par le passé et chez ceux qui trouvaient la médication peu efficace. Chez les enfants ayant des incapacités physiques, l’utilisation des médecines complémentaires était associée à des facteurs socio-démographiques et à des besoins plus élevés en matière de santé. Les médecines complémentaires étaient considérées comme étant efficaces dans les deux cohortes mais leur utilisation était associée à de faibles résultats chez les enfants atteints d’arthrite. Ces résultats démontrent l’importance d’évaluer l’utilisation des médecines complémentaires afin de mieux renseigner les parents et de les aider à prendre les meilleures décisions possibles concernant le traitement de leur enfant.Background: Children with chronic diseases often use complementary and alternative health care (CAHC). Several studies described the use of these treatments and the factors associated with it. However, no longitudinal studies were conducted to determine the use of these treatments over time. Furthermore, no study has evaluated CAHC use in children who were waiting for public rehabilitation services. Objective: The aim was to determine the frequency of CAHC use in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and children with various physical disabilities (PD), to evaluate its effectiveness from the parents’ points of view and to explore the factors associated with their utilization. Methods: A cohort of children with JIA (n=182, mean age: 10.2 years) who attended arthritis clinics and a cohort of children with physical disabilities (n=224, mean age: 2.6 years) waiting for public rehabilitation services were followed for one year. We evaluated the use of CAHC and its effectiveness from the parents’ points of view at three month intervals for children with JIA and at the beginning of the study for children with PD, using descriptive statistics. We explored factors associated with their utilization, using GEE (“Generalized estimating equations »), polytomous and logistic regression. Results : Previous use of CAHC was 51.1% for children with JIA and 15% for children with PD. CAHC was considered beneficial in 72% of the cases by parents of children with JIA and in 83% of the cases by parents of children with PD. Factors associated with higher use of CAHC in children with JIA were previous use of CAHC by parents and lower perceived helpfulness of prescribed medications (p<0.05). In children with PD, factors associated with higher use of CAHC were Canadian cultural background, mother’s level of education higher than high school and lower health-related quality of life. Finally, in children with JIA, CAHC use was associated with worse outcomes. Conclusions: Many children in our study used CAHC. Its use was more common in children with JIA, particularly among those whose parents used it previously and found medications to be less helpful. For children with PD, use of CAHC was associated with socio-demographic factors as well as higher children’s health needs. CAHC were perceived to be beneficial in both cohorts but its use was associated with worse outcomes for children with JIA. This underlines the importance for health professionals to evaluate CAHC use in order to better inform parents, which may help them make the best decisions regarding their child’s treatment

Outcome Measures in Rheumatology - Interventions for medication Adherence (OMERACT-Adherence) Core Domain Set for Trials of Interventions for Medication Adherence in Rheumatology: 5 Phase Study Protocol

Background: Over the last 20 years, there have been marked improvements in the availability of effective medications for rheumatic conditions such as gout, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which have led to a reduction in disease flares and the risk of re-fracture in osteoporosis, and the slowing of disease progression in RA. However, medication adherence remains suboptimal, as treatment regimens can be complex and difficult to continue long term. Many trials have been conducted to improve adherence to medication. Core domains, which are the outcomes of most relevance to patients and clinicians, are a pivotal component of any trial. These core domains should be measured consistently, so that all relevant trials can be combined in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to reach conclusions that are more valid. Failure to do this severely limits the potential for trial-based evidence to inform decisions on how to support medication adherence. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) - Interventions for Medication Adherence study by the OMERACT-Adherence Group aims to develop a core domain set for interventions that aim to support medication adherence in rheumatology. Methods/design: This OMERACT-Adherence study has five phases: (1) a systematic review to identify outcome domains that have been reported in interventions focused on supporting medication adherence in rheumatology; (2) semi-structured stakeholder interviews with patients and caregivers to determine their views on the core domains; (3) focus groups using the nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to identify and rank domains that are relevant to them, including the reasons for their choices; (4) an international three-round modified Delphi survey involving patients with diverse rheumatic conditions, caregivers, health professionals, researchers and other stakeholders to develop a preliminary core domain set; and (5) a stakeholder workshop with OMERACT members to review, vote on and reach a consensus on the core domain set for interventions to support medication adherence in rheumatology. Discussion: Establishing a core domain set to be reported in all intervention studies undertaken to support patients with medication adherence will enhance the relevance and the impact of these results and improve the lives of people with rheumatic conditions.The OMERACT-Adherence Group receives funding from OMERACT, which will be used to support a patient research partner in the OMERACT-Adherence Group to attend the OMERACT conference. OMERACT (http://www.omeract.org, contact: secretariat [email protected]) is the primary sponsor responsible for approving the initiation and overviewing the ongoing progress and management of the study. OMERACT mentors overview the design and conduct of the studies, including the interpretation of data and preparation, and review and approval of manuscripts. The following funding organisations had no role in the design and conduct of the studies; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review or approval of manuscripts. AK is supported by the Arthritis Australia Scholarship funded by the Allan and Beryl Stephens Grant from the Estate of the Late Beryl Stephens. AT is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (1037162). RC’s employer, the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg, and Frederiksberg Hospital, is supported by a core grant (OCAY-13-309) from the Oak Foundation. Phases 1–3 of the OMERACT-Adherence study were funded by a 2018 Arthritis Australia project grant (major funder), and a private research grant provided by Professor Stephen Hall

Exploring the complexities of pain phenotypes: OMERACT 2023 chronic pain working group workshop

Objective: To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials. Methods: In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted. Results: Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs. Conclusion: There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms

Evidence for Updating the Core Domain Set of Outcome Measures for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Report from a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2016

Objective. The current Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) Core Set was developed in 1997 to identify the outcome measures to be used in JIA clinical trials using statistical and consensus-based techniques, but without patient involvement. The importance of patient/parent input into the research process has increasingly been recognized over the years. An Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) JIA Core Set Working Group was formed to determine whether the outcome domains of the current core set are relevant to those involved or whether the core set domains should be revised.Methods. Twenty-four people from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, including patient partners, formed the working group. Guided by the OMERACT Filter 2.0 process, we performed (1) a systematic literature review of outcome domains, (2) a Web-based survey (142 patients, 343 parents), (3) an idea-generation study (120 parents), (4) 4 online discussion boards (24 patients, 20 parents), and (5) a Special Interest Group (SIG) activity at the OMERACT 13 (2016) meeting.Results. A MEDLINE search of outcome domains used in studies of JIA yielded 5956 citations, of which 729 citations underwent full-text review, and identified additional domains to those included in the current JIA Core Set. Qualitative studies on the effect of JIA identified multiple additional domains, including pain and participation. Twenty-one participants in the SIG achieved consensus on the need to revise the entire JIA Core Set.Conclusion. The results of qualitative studies and literature review support the need to expand the JIA Core Set, considering, among other things, additional patient/parent-centered outcomes, clinical data, and imaging data

Navigating the path of progress: The OMERACT 2023 emerging leaders program

Objectives: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Emerging Leaders Program (ELP) aims to cultivate a cohort of skilled leaders within the OMERACT community empowering them with expertise and knowledge to help shape and steer the organization into the future. This publication highlights the significance of the ELP in driving leadership excellence, its impact on OMERACT's evolution, and the outcomes and learnings from the OMERACT 2023 ELP. Methods: Insights from the 2018 ELP report informed 2023 program improvements. Engagement was measured by attendance and WhatsApp interactions. Positive program aspects, areas for improvement and ideas for enhancing future ELPs were captured via anonymous survey and participant focus groups. Results: Engagement with the ELP was high with 9 participants, 96 % attendance at all workshops, 154 WhatsApp interactions. All program components were highly rated, with the highest being the ‘Psychological Safety’ and ‘Methodology/Process/Politics’ workshops. Future enhancements included creating further networking, connection and support activities, practical leadership and methodological skill development opportunities, and a new stream focussing on organisational advancement. Conclusions: The 2023 OMERACT ELP was well received and successfully addressed areas previously identified as requiring improvement. New educational enhancements were valued, and the importance of fostering psychological safety at all levels was highlighted. The ELP fortifies OMERACT by nurturing a diverse array of skilled leaders who embody OMERACTs core values. Continuing to refine and evolve the ELP over time will help OMERACT sustain its global influence in patient-centered outcome research

Measurement Properties of Questionnaires Assessing Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is commonly used by children, but estimates of that use vary widely partly due to the range of questionnaires used to assess CAM use. However, no studies have attempted to appraise measurement properties of these questionnaires. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise and summarize measurement properties of questionnaires of CAM use in pediatrics.A search strategy was implemented in major electronic databases in March 2011 and conference websites, scientific journals and experts were consulted. Studies were included if they mentioned a questionnaire assessing the prevalence of CAM use in pediatrics. Members of the team independently rated the methodological quality of the studies (using the COSMIN checklist) and measurement properties of the questionnaires (using the Terwee and Cohen criteria).A total of 96 CAM questionnaires were found in 104 publications. The COSMIN checklist showed that no studies reported adequate methodological quality. The Terwee criteria showed that all included CAM questionnaires had indeterminate measurement properties. According to the Cohen score, none were considered to be a well-established assessment, two approached the level of a well-established assessment, seven were promising assessments and the remainder (n = 87) did not reach the score's minimum standards.None of the identified CAM questionnaires have been thoroughly validated. This systematic review highlights the need for proper validation of CAM questionnaires in pediatrics, which may in turn lead to improved research and knowledge translation about CAM in clinical practice

Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. To develop an innovative stepped patient decision aid (StDA) comparing the benefits and harms of 13 nonsurgical treatment options for managing osteoarthritis (OA) and to evaluate its acceptability and effects on informed decision making. Methods. Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, the process involved (1) developing a decision aid with evidence on 13 nonsurgical treatments from the 2012 American College of Rheumatology OA clinical practice guidelines; and (2) interviewing patients with OA and healthcare providers to test its acceptability and effects on knowledge and decisional conflict. Results. The StDA helped make the decision explicit, and presented evidence on 13 OA treatments clustered into 5 steps or levels according to their benefits and harms. Probabilities of benefits and harms were presented using pictograms of 100 faces formatted to allow comparisons across sets of options. It also included a values clarification exercise and knowledge test. Feedback was obtained from 49 patients and 7 healthcare providers. They found that the StDA presented evidence in a clear manner, and helped patients clarify their values and make an informed decision. Some participants found that there was too much information and others said that there was not enough on each treatment option. Conclusion. This innovative StDA allows patients to consider both the evidence and their values for multiple options. The findings are being used to revise and plan future evaluation. The StDA is an example of how research evidence in guidelines can be implemented in practice